Meeting to discuss FLARM in the USA

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
news:9S1Vi.131$MW.53@trndny05...
Ian wrote:
On 27 Oct, 17:08, pascal wrote:

It's always a shock when you pass a glider coming from
the front without having the warning (because it is not equipped with
flarm); and despite looking out you surprise yourself not having
noticed that particular glider.

I wonder how well you look (ie one looks) out when a little part of
the brain assumes that flarm would have reacted to anything that
mattered?

There is always the problem of adverse compensation when a safety device
is introduced. Monitoring of the situation should continue after the
introduction to ensure the desired increase in safety occurrs. I believe
this is the case with FLARM.

What puzzles me is how skeptical you are about a widely accepted device
you have not used. FLARM has sold 9000 units. 9000! When 9000 pilots
voluntarily equip their aircraft with an $800 device, I am inclined to
think there may be something quite useful there and to look forward to an
opportunity to use one.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
* "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

It's just human nature. It's called the "Negative Expert" syndrome. Every
technological advance in soaring has met the same negative initial response.
Later, when everybody is using the technology, the same people will defend
it against the NEXT advance.

The basic concept of real-time position exchange and conflict determination
is an outstanding idea. It's one that, properly implemented, will increase
safety and reduce cockpit workload. The only real thing to discuss is how
to best implement it. All indications are that FLARM is extremely well
executed.

It's true that glider traffic densities are far higher in Europe than in the
US which is why FLARM was developed there first. However, there are some
locations in the US where glider traffic is dense enough to justify FLARM.
There are also benefits beyond mid-air avoidance. For example, knowing
where your soaring buddy is without jamming 123.3.

Absent some wholley unexpected blooming of FAA technological leadership,
ADS-B is far enough in the future for several development cycles of FLARM to
pass before we can afford ADS-B. If FLARM can be adopted to the US legal
and regulatory environment today, I say "bring it on".

Bill Daniels